Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    December 23, 2012 11:30pm-12:00am PST

11:30 pm
you come have that position being brought in house saving certainly in terms of the amount of money that is being paid under the contract that we have with ms. miller which contract necessarily requires her as the interim executive officer to spend time doing things that would be accomplished by a permanent executive officer, so that's one thing. the second thing is in terms of bringing the decision in house there are two options that were outlined in this memo, and one of them would be i think option one, as i understand it is to consolidate both the executive officer and both the senior program position into one, and then the other would be to simply take from the senior officer -- i mean the senior
11:31 pm
program position, take away some of the restrictions so that position could be used to fill in the executive officer position, so those are the two options, and i personally think that we should pursue bringing the position in house. i also believe that we have very capable staff that can step into that but i also want to make sure that we have this discussion, and that we have a discussion not only about the outcome, but the process that we want to follow because that's very important, and it maybe that you decide that you can bring the position in house but you follow a different process. i just want to make sure that we have that discussion, so with that i will open it up to my colleagues. commissioner avalos. >> thank you chair campos. i
11:32 pm
would like to see it brought in house and i think a process for going through that. i think it's important that when we have a position open up and go through a search as part of it. i think that's just the process i feel most comfortable with overall all, but that's the i talked about that a lot last year when we had major openings in the mta, in other departments in the city that it's important that we just don't approve people, but we actually have somewhat of a process to say that we did look through the range of applicants to be able to understand the type of position we want to have in the position ideally and how to move on there from. >> commissioner mar. >> thank you. i just wanted to
11:33 pm
say i appreciate ms. miller's work over the years, but i'm in agreement with our chair, supervisor campos, it will bring us significant cost savings but really an ability for lafco to be more than it is right now and i appreciate working with jason fried as well and i hope he applies for that position and i hear what supervisor avalos is saying and it makes sense. >> colleagues, any other comments? questions? commissioner olague. >> now, i was just going to comment and if i missed my opportunity to comment on potential items -- is this the time? >> yes. >> well, i wanted to mention that i'm not sure if there are other examples of it, or how to even approach this, but in san francisco i guess there are few
11:34 pm
commissions that are still picked partly my the payor and partly by the board of supervisors. >> >> and i'm just wondering is there a way of sort of reflecting on their kind of decision making processes? or you know because -- for instance, park and rec is a commission selected fully by the mayor and you have planning commission which is like a three-four commission. you have mayor and board but i am wondering if there is anyway of looking -- one functions better than the other or any market differences in how these bodies function? just because they have a lot to do with -- they do make some decisions and have to do how the city is run. i think they have some influence. >> so you're talking about a potential special study there? >> i guess so. >> and that's something that is
11:35 pm
certainly the commission is authorized to look into. appointments and commissions are governed by either your charter or by state law so it's easy to go down the road to figure out is it something that can be changed or a discretionary act within the board of supervisors or the mayor and to go about change that so it's something you could look at. >> i guess in the charter -- i am wondering in terms how they function or not, and i don't know how we get into that really. maybe it's not worth it. i won't be here obviously but it's something i was something about. i guess i am thinking out loud here. >> point well taken. >> commissioner schmeltzer. >> i'm sorry. i was misunderstanding commissioner olague's question -- >> i think commissioner olague
11:36 pm
-- >> yeah, i was wondering because you have some commissions that are selected entirely by the mayor and some aren't and i am wondering in terms of the outcomes -- whatever. >> i am with you now. i was responding to what i thought you were asking but you were asking something different. >> okay. >> let me just say -- yes commissioner? >> actually one other clarifying -- so under this proposal ms. miller would remain as the legal counsel but only providing services on legal issues as needed? is that right? >> i think -- that's correct. i think what we would do commissioners depending what the sediment of the commission would be. >> >> sentiment is that we would introduce something at the board of supervisors to provide the
11:37 pm
legislative mechanisms so that lafco staff can focus on a lot of other things besides community choice aggregation which i imagine is something the commission would like to see, so we would proceed along those lines. if there is a desire to keep the current structure, nothing would change. if there is a desire to keep the -- to have the -- to bring it is interim -- the bring the executive officer position in house we would proceed to do that. again with respect to that it would be a question of how we want to do that, do we want to consolidate the two positions, or if we want to take away the restrictions from the senior program position, and so that's something that we would do. mr. fried. >>i wanted to get clarifying points on what i consider the first option and if you go down
11:38 pm
the road of search for a new executive officer and create a new position you have to go through the city process and have the board approve it and d and r and its processes, get the mayor to approve. you would have to take a lot of extra steps to creating that position so you could go out and do a search for an executive officer position. just for fairness if that occurred and supervisor mar said i would apply for it and i would and i would take myself out of that and not fair to being on it obviously and it's actually a lengthily process at least the impression i got from the clerk's office and lengthy process creating the position. the way you would do it and get it through the dhr process and eliminating my position. you're eliminating the other position that we have, the community position, and that's how you get your cost savings in order to
11:39 pm
have executive officer position so there is -- there is some length of time between all this occurring and putting it out for people to submit their application and all that. >> is there a process -- with respect to option two, option two would simply work by -- how would option two work? >> option two is basically lifting the restrictions on my position. when the board of supervisors created the position they put restrictions on what i could work on and do. if the board of supervisors would simply lift the restrictions i could do all of the items that the executive officer currently does. once again the clerk's office did check into this and they determined my base position can do all work that an executive officer of this body would be working on. not necessarily of any commission but the work that this
11:40 pm
commission does and do all of that work. you wouldn't have to go through dhr at all and as far as they're concerned by position is covered. >> could there be a selection process under option two along what the members talked about? >> i guess if i resign my position and apply again you could potentially do that. >> i see. ms. miller. >> well, i think -- we're in the process right now of in our budget with sf puc allocating sf puc resources because we do have sf puc money for cca, so there is some latitude to you from a budget standpoint about the position, so in terms of flexibility with option two. i
11:41 pm
don't think you need to say there is only one position available and we have two positions authorized and we're going to cut the one, and then maybe what you would be saying you want to authorize the other, but with cost effectiveness if you go out figure out in the interview that you could do the two with one you would do that if that makes sense to you. >> okay. commissioner avalos, did you want to add anything? i think -- >> i would have a preference that we don't -- we have a search process that doesn't go through the rigga mo rol that jason discussed right now with the ideal and we could have a flexible process for option two, but i just thought jason was shaking his head. i
11:42 pm
wasn't counting on the process so involved with the process and the mayor process -- the mayor be part of that process. that to me doesn't seem like a real easy process to go through. i know it doesn't seem like one that has the best interest of the lafco members, commissioners in the driver's seat. >> okay. do we have a response? >> my response is from what my understanding of it is that in order to have a search process you either -- we would create that new position, have to go through the city process to do that or i would have to resign from my position. i am asking our clerk to call over and see if we could get somebody from the hr folks over here. >> i have a suggestion on this, but commissioner schmeltzer i want to hear from you before. >> thank you. just following up on commissioner avalos' point
11:43 pm
and what mr. fried is saying i guess i find it hard to believe that somebody can't be acting in a position and be considered for it. that seems to happen regularly and there is a search process but someone is the acting or interim during that time and fore does it seem possible he would have to resign to be considered so i think we need to get clarification on that. maybe we don't need to do that today. >> exactly. my suggestion is this and we want to make sure we hear from the public on this and unless i hear objection and obviously want to hear from the public on this and clearly we will proceed to make sure that that there is an expansion of duty so staff can focus on these other things, but besides that that we actually figure out what the most expeditious way for us
11:44 pm
to have a process for a formal selection of an executive officer would be, and that if it is possible the preference would be that we pursue option two and still allow for a selection process, and maybe it is as mr. fried is saying that's not possible, but one possibility might be there is an acting appointment that happens. i don't know that we know enough to know for sure that that is not a possibility. i think that between now and the time that we have our next meeting that we can come back to the commission with a more detailed recommendation that says this is the most expeditious way to have a process. i think that would be the way they would approach
11:45 pm
it. my preference is that we find -- i do think that there are -- you know, i can go different ways, but i think one of the benefits for having a process whoever is selected if it's somebody already there it adds a level of credibility and mandate to that individual. if we go down that route it's my hope that mr. fried would apply for that and given his experience and what he has done i think it makes a great deal of sense. we can figure out the most expeditious way to do a process and we can come back to the commission with that and if it is the case there is no expeditious way to do that and the only way is to actually go through the more formal process of requesting the consolidation of positions and a new position
11:46 pm
is created at least we will know that. mr. fried, ms. miller do you want to add anything to that? okay. why don't we open it up to public comment. >> good afternoon again commissioners. eric brook representing san francisco green party and the local organization our city. first a technical point on all of this. i was under the impression and check with dhr on this that the executive position still exists but filled on an interim basis. maybe i am wrong on that but good to make sure you're correct on that from the staff's perspective. i agree bringing it back in house because the next year is going to be really big for clean power sf and some other things and we need somebody that can be available five days a week, 50 weeks a year. i mean that's really
11:47 pm
going to be important, but the main thing i want to focus on is that the advocates for clean power sf have had some concerns with the way that lafco -- when we originally set set up lafco to work on clean power sf and especially get at the beginning of 2007 and what we needed from lafco and i believe the intention we needed somebody on task for clean power sf itself that could approach the sf puc on many occasions the sf puc wasn't thinking outside of the box on this to put it politely, and we need someone, and i think we will need someone well versed in local distributive generation, the
11:48 pm
dynamics of financing clean energy and clean energy over the next year so we can take the build out work that is looking promising and realizing for reasons for saving the planet and economics that we must do this local build out. it's not really something that we can debate. we need -- so whatever you do with these positions we would hope that you still end up with two positions and one position could be carefully dedicated to somebody with a lot of expertise on local distributive renewable and generation and efficiency so they can help us dive in with sf puc and make sure we're getting the sf puc hour enterprise to push the envelope on this issue and crucial to the planet, crucial to jobs. you have heard us say that many times and i would concur with freeing up
11:49 pm
the executive officer. i think we saw when mr. fried was doing good and important work on rank choice voting he had one hand tied behind his back and nice for more flexibility to be there so those are my comments. >> thank you. is there any other public comment? >> hi commissioners. i am paul kingus that those that created cca which is a policy that inevitably will fail because it creates no jobs in san francisco. it gives money to shell who import solar energy from nevada. correct me if i am wrong and there are numerous books written about how this policy will fail. what you need in that position is someone
11:50 pm
with new blood and global warming is real and emergency and a crisis. san francisco is the kind of city of the tail that wags the dog. we can create a policy that matches the german policy of creating jobs, cash flow in this town. the only state that has done it so far is verment and gainsville florida you need somebody here who is a critic of cca, not somebody in house and along with the shell game because it inevitably going to fail. if you don't have somebody speaking that understands the policy how it inevitably will fail, must fail. it's designed to fail. if you don't have somebody that understands that concept in the position then you're just going to be walking down the road to inevitably throwing money at a policy that will fail, so would urge when looking for somebody
11:51 pm
ask them questions about what policy they understand because most people in this town, and the media do not know that germany is approaching 100% renewable energy and there is already a nation that is 100% solar and the cca plan is just failure. designed to fail, so if you're not aware of that, if you never heard that before you should talk to somebody who knows and there's people who have written books on this how this policy must fail. it's just scientifically designed upside down and backwards. it can't possibly succeed but san francisco needs because we're a leadership town we need a policy that will win. the mayor talked to the mayor of freeberg germany who has a policy and we think we should talk to them over there.
11:52 pm
thank you. >> thank you. is there any other member of the public that would like to speak? seeing none public comment is closed. colleagues i think i have a sense how we should proceed and we will move forward and introduce a resolution expanding the ability of staff to focus on other issues besides cca and we will work with our staff to figure out the most ix pidishes way to bring the position in house, and one of the things they will consider when we look at that to the extent that option two allows for itself for a process of selection whether or not that would mean the creation of any additional position as well because i think that maybe needed as we move forward, and again i want to thank ms. miller and mr. fried
11:53 pm
in helping us navigate through this. i actually think it's a sign of the growth, if you will, that we're making as an organization, the fact that we are at this juncture. i think it's something that we need to do expeditiously but also do it right because for the local agency formation commission to see -- to come -- to see the maximizing of its role in city government i think that this has to be done and that's one of the reasons i wanted to have it on the agenda, so i appreciate the comments, and again mr. fried. >> yeah. i want to make sure there are no other am whys we wanted to look at. >> >> on next year's agenda and spent so much time on that one. >> in terms of goals and objectives colleagues? we
11:54 pm
heard from commissioner olague about -- i think a very, very good issue which is the issue of committee appointments and the structure where you have split appointments as opposed to simply mayoral appointments and how that works. i think that is one possibility. commissioner avalos. >> just a vague idea that i want to put out there that could be looked at by lafco maybe. one is we talk about san francisco's growing economy, and it's especially growing in the tech sector. there was a report in the paper today from the bay area council study and uc berkeley study there is a great multiplying effect happening right now with jobs created but
11:55 pm
i'm wondering if the city having greater or in the water to make sure that we are building a pipeline between long-term local residents especially comments of color with jobs in the tech center would be something that we look at possibly, but that's an interest i have. there is an example in our packet that talks about looking at trees and the issue of relinquishment right now in san francisco and tip -- stipically before a progress issue and it's a burden to be responsible to take care of trees. is there a way to reestablishing foresteration program and tree maintenance
11:56 pm
program in san francisco and part of work force development. that to me is an interesting idea and cuts across the politics in the city. that was an example provided in our packet. i am also interested in the municipal bank idea that is also an example in the packet. i believe if we have greater control over our public dollars to do community investments, and to help develop our communities we are actually taking a greater stake in our destiny as a city and we had those discussions and long-term work to do it and like the long work for the establishment of clean power sf. i look at it in the same vain and same idea and
11:57 pm
around the municipal bank we could create our separate authority, body from the city and county of san francisco to make municipal bank possible and worth exploring in the coming year. >> thank you commissioner. commissioner mar. >> i agree with the suggestions of supervisor olague and avalos, and i know mr. fried in your report you mentioned understanding how government can operate better studies that look at our funding of schools and preschools and i think that would be good because we are going to be in the process of considering reauthorization of prop h or the enrichment fund, but also preschool for all which is a program that flows through our first five commission so i think a broader analysis of that
11:58 pm
proposition would be helpful. i know our city participates in a state wide schools collaborative and model for other cities and counties as well, but some analysis of the effectiveness would be useful as we consider reauthorizing prop h but that is just a suggestion. >> and by the way i will give more opportunity for anyone in the public that would like to add their 2 cents on this, but i think the way we should approach it and they're great ideas and i would be interested in pursuing any one of them or all of them i think we do have to at some point take formal ookz that provides guidance to staff as to what priorities are and to the extent that there maybe additional ideas that come up.
11:59 pm
maybe the thing is to ask staff at the next meeting that there be a resolution or something that we can be voting on that that provides a list of priorities but also organizes them in terms of importance, so there is a road map for staff where to begin. i mean that would be my suggestion. ms. miller, mr. fried any thoughts on that. >> i think that's exactly correct chair campos. some of these i could work on and in house and the tree stuff maybe outside consult aptds to help us and having an understanding from you what you think are the priorities and help us how we prioritize the work that gets done on them. >>i think one thing that might